William Lane Craig takes a good argument to be a valid argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations. Craig claims that there are several valid arguments for God's existence that meet this criterion, and he takes the best amongst them to be The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). Craig presents KCA as a valid argument with three premises and two conclusions. The first conclusion is that the universe began to exist, and the second is that God exists. Craig's case for KCA is a set of twelve arguments that seek to show that the premises are either true or more plausible than their negations, four arguments for each premise. I aim to show that contrary to Craig's claim, KCA does not meet his criterion for being a good argument. I will do this by refuting each of the twelve arguments and by giving a case against each premise. My case against the first premise is that it's equiprobable with its negation, my case against the second premise is a set of three arguments for why the premise is less plausible than its negation and my case against the third premise is that it's false.